His Word Today

⁵ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, ⁶ while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. ⁷ The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. ⁸ Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. ⁹ Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ ¹⁰ And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.” Matthew 22:5–10 (ESV)

No one wants to be ignored. No one likes being rejected. “I shut down after being ignored, rejected, dismissed, or insulted. I don’t even speak. I just immediately shut down and go mute. It’s so weird,” writes one individual.

Imagine you sent invitations to your daughter’s upcoming wedding. You provide them ample time to plan to attend. It is understandable some people may have scheduling conflicts and are unable to come. They send you their regrets. This happens all the time.

However, how would you feel if everyone on your guest list of family and friends ignored the invitation and did not even respond but went about their busy lives? Not only would this affect your plans and preparation for the wedding and reception, but you would be deeply hurt. I wonder how your daughter would feel.

Jesus said a king gave a wedding feast for his son, the prince. He sent his servants to call the invited guests to attend. However, they would not come. He sent even more servants to announce to the invitees the feast was ready. All the king wanted was for his invited guests to come and enjoy the celebration (Matt. 22:1-4).

Yet they would not come. Today’s text says they paid no attention. They did not respond. They neglected, disregarded and ignored not only the invitation but the good and gracious king. Some went about their lives and businesses. Others reacted by seizing the king’s servants, mistreating them and killing them. Such behavior is totally reprehensible.

The king became angry and took appropriate action. He sent his troops, destroyed the murderers and burned their city. By this time, it should be clear the king is none other than the LORD God. His servants are His prophets, priests, and godly rulers like David. The invited guests who not only reject the servants, but ultimately the King, is Israel.

“The fact that persecution of God’s messengers had already occurred, was actually taking place, and was going to be the order of the day also during the years immediately following is clear from several passages. What had been the reaction of many, especially of the leaders, to John the Baptist? See Matt. 3:7–9; 11:18, 19; 21:25. What was—and was going to be—their attitude to Jesus?” states Dr. William Hendriksen. See Matt. 12:24; 16:21; 20:18; 21:38, 39; 27:20, 22; John 1:5–11; 5:18; 6:66. And to the disciples?” See Matt. 10:16, 22, 25; John 16:33; Acts 4:3; 7:58–60; 8:1; 12:1–3.”

“It appears that the invited guests had a city of their own. It is clear that the reference is to Jerusalem. Its destruction (a.d. 70) is here clearly predicted. See also 21:40–43; 23:37, 38; 24:1, 2, 15 ff; Luke 19:41–44. As to the fulfilment, Jerusalem was taken by Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian (a.d. 69–79). The temple was destroyed. It is believed that more than a million Jews, who had crowded into the city, perished. As a political unit Israel ceased to exist. As a nation specially favored by the Lord it had reached the end of the road even long before the beginning of the Jewish War.”

However, Jesus was not finished with His parable. He concluded by saying the king then did the unexpected. He said to his servants, “The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.”

The servants did what their king commanded. They went out into the roads and gathered all they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

“God, the king in today’s passage, sends His servants the prophets to call His people to come to a feast for His Son (vv. 2–3). Actually, the servants go first to those who once told the king they would be at the party. Two invitations customarily went forth for parties in the ancient Near East. The first one did not list the time and place of the event, it only demanded a response of “Yes, I am coming” or “I cannot make it.” A second invitation then finalized the day and hour. At Sinai, the Almighty invited the Israelites to His banquet (the first invite), and they accepted without knowing when it would be (Ex. 24:1–11). Yet when God sent prophets to announce the day of the Lord and the messianic feast (the second invitation), many Israelites turned down the party (Luke 19:41–44),” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“So the Lord calls on those who have received no invitation — those outside God’s covenant with Israel (vv. 9–10). These foreigners accept the invitation gladly and join those Israelites who are true to Yahweh at the Lamb’s marriage feast (Rev. 19:6–10).”

Have you received your invitation to the wedding feast? What is your response to the King of kings and Lord of lords and His gracious invitation to receive eternal life from Him alone by grace alone, through faith alone, in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone? The invitation is sent. How will you respond?

Soli deo Gloria!

“And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, ² “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, ³ and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. ⁴ Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast. But they paid no attention.”  (Matthew 22:1–5a (ESV)

“An understanding of parables is essential if one is to understand the teaching of Jesus, since the parables make up approximately 35 percent of his recorded sayings. At no point are the vitality, relevance, and appropriateness of his teaching so clear as they are in his parables. While the parable form is not unique to Jesus, he was certainly a master at using parables as a way of teaching. The parables are not merely illustrations for Jesus’ preaching; they are the preaching, at least to a great extent. Nor are they simple stories; they have been truly described as both “works of art” and “weapons of warfare.” –Tyndale bible Dictionary

The Oxford Dictionary defines a parable as “a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.”

For the third time in the same context and to the same audience, Jesus taught a parable. The first was about two sons (Matt. 21:28-32). The second was about ungodly tenants of a vineyard (21:33-46). This third one concerned a wedding feast a king gave for his son. Jesus compared the kingdom of heaven to such an event.

A wedding feast in the ancient Jewish culture was a major event. It was often a weeklong celebration. Additionally, today’s text states this was a royal wedding feast.

“In parables rabbis often compared God to a king, whose son represented Israel; the setting was also often a wedding feast for the son. Wedding feasts were frequently large gatherings; a very wealthy person could invite an entire city to one. Coming to a wedding feast required some commitment of valuable time on the part of guests (Jewish hearers would assume a feast lasting seven days, and a king would expect his guests to remain throughout the feast); this commitment would be difficult for peasants working the land. But the honor of being invited by a king—and the terror of displeasing him—would have motivated intelligent invitees to attend. The invited guests may have been aristocratic landowners anyway (22:5), who had the leisure for such activities,” explains commentator Craig Keener.

Appropriately, the king sent his servants announcing the wedding feat for his son to all the invitees. This was, as is the case today, a preliminary invitation announcing the date, time and place for the celebration. This gave ample time for the invited guests to plan to attend. Such an invitation would be a great honor.

It was at this point the story significantly shifts. Jesus said the invited guests would not come. No reasons were given. Seemingly, no apologies were made. Imagine how you would feel if you invited family and friends to your child’s wedding and no one said they were coming. It would be devastating. You would be hurt.

Dismissing any embarrassment, the king invited his wedding guests a second time saying, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast. But they paid no attention.”

Who wouldn’t want to attend the wedding and the accompanying feast and festivities. It would be a weeklong holiday. It would how honor to the king and appreciation for his gracious invitation. It’s not as if the bridal party were lacking for wedding gifts. They were a royal couple. No expense was spared.

“These verses strongly remind one of the parable of The Wicked Tenants. In both parables the patience and persistence shown by the Sender is stressed,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

“This marvelous longsuffering of “the king,” in the present parable, reveals itself in the fact that a. he first issues a “call” or general invitation; b. then he sends servants earnestly summoning the invited ones to come; and c. when the latter are unwilling to come he sends other servants, instructing them to present an even more urgent, moving appeal: all things are now ready, and there is no lack of food: butchered steers and fatted cattle.”

“According to God’s plan (Matt.13:10–17), impenitent sinners harden their hearts further as they listen to the story about the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1–10 (v. 15), but those who have open ears hear again the grace revealed in Christ’s teaching about the expansion of God’s kingdom,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁴³ “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. ⁴⁴ And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”  ⁴⁵ When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. ⁴⁶ And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.” (Matthew 21:43–46 (ESV)

Following His initial question to the religious leaders (Matt. 21:40-42), Jesus brings the full weight of the parables’ application to bear. It was a statement of judgment, blessing and promised truth. 

The judgment was the chief priests and the elders would lost the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:23). They would experience the reality of the Lord’s judgment. Their self-righteousness would be seen for what it was; filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

The blessing was the Lord would give the kingdom to a people producing fruits of true conversion (Gal. 5:16-26). These kingdom citizens would not only be Jews but also Gentiles. In other words, the Lord would create the church (Eph. 2:11-22).

The promise was the kingdom would not be moved or overthrown by the self-righteousness of a man-made works-based salvation. The kingdom would be a like a gigantic stone.

“Christ is “a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over” to unbelievers (Isa. 8:14; 1 Pet. 2:9). And the prophet Daniel pictured him as a great stone “cut from a mountain by no human hand,” which falls on the kingdoms of the world and crushes them (Dan. 2:44–45). Whether a ceramic vessel “falls on” a rock, or the rock “falls” on the vessel, the result is the same. The saying suggests that both enmity and apathy are wrong responses to Christ, and those guilty of either are in danger of judgment,” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

Matthew recorded the enmity of the religious leaders towards Jesus. They understood He was speaking about them. Their wanted to arrest Jesus. Being cowards, they refrained because they were afraid of the people who regarded Jesus a prophet of God.

“In fulfillment of Psalm 118:22, the rejected Son is the “cornerstone” — the stone at the corner that joins two walls together. By combining the prophecies of Isaiah 8:14 and Daniel 2:34, 44, Jesus claims to be, as the founder of God’s kingdom on earth, the Lord over all earthly kingdoms. As the “stone,” He will crush all opposition to the kingdom of God. (Matt. 21:42–44),” states Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Psalm 2 (ESV) – “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? ² The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, ³ “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” ⁴ He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. ⁵ Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, ⁶ “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” ⁷I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. ⁸ Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. ⁹ You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” ¹⁰ Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. ¹¹ Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. ¹² Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

Soli deo Gloria! 

⁴³ “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. ⁴⁴ And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”  ⁴⁵ When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. ⁴⁶ And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.” (Matthew 21:43–46 (ESV)

Following His initial question to the religious leaders (Matt. 21:40-42), Jesus brings the full weight of the parables’ application to bear. It was a statement of judgment, blessing and promised truth. 

The judgment was the chief priests and the elders would lost the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:23). They would experience the reality of the Lord’s judgment. Their self-righteousness would be seen for what it was; filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

The blessing was the Lord would give the kingdom to a people producing fruits of true conversion (Gal. 5:16-26). These kingdom citizens would not only be Jews but also Gentiles. In other words, the Lord would create the church (Eph. 2:11-22).

The promise was the kingdom would not be moved or overthrown by the self-righteousness of a man-made works-based salvation. The kingdom would be a like a gigantic stone.

“Christ is “a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over” to unbelievers (Isa. 8:14; 1 Pet. 2:9). And the prophet Daniel pictured him as a great stone “cut from a mountain by no human hand,” which falls on the kingdoms of the world and crushes them (Dan. 2:44–45). Whether a ceramic vessel “falls on” a rock, or the rock “falls” on the vessel, the result is the same. The saying suggests that both enmity and apathy are wrong responses to Christ, and those guilty of either are in danger of judgment,” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

Matthew recorded the enmity of the religious leaders towards Jesus. They understood He was speaking about them. Their wanted to arrest Jesus. Being cowards, they refrained because they were afraid of the people who regarded Jesus a prophet of God.

“In fulfillment of Psalm 118:22, the rejected Son is the “cornerstone” — the stone at the corner that joins two walls together. By combining the prophecies of Isaiah 8:14 and Daniel 2:34, 44, Jesus claims to be, as the founder of God’s kingdom on earth, the Lord over all earthly kingdoms. As the “stone,” He will crush all opposition to the kingdom of God. (Matt. 21:42–44),” states Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Psalm 2 (ESV) – “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? ² The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, ³ “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” ⁴ He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. ⁵ Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, ⁶ “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” ⁷I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. ⁸ Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. ⁹ You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” ¹⁰ Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. ¹¹ Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. ¹² Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

Soli deo Gloria! 

⁴⁰ “When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” ⁴¹ They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” ⁴² Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “ ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (Matthew 21:40-42 ESV)

Following His parabolic teaching, Jesus then asked the Jewish religious leaders a question: “When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” The answer seemed to be obvious but the Lord wanted the chief priests and the elders of the people to verbalize their response.

They said to Jesus, ““He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” The religious leaders’ response two-fold.

First, they wanted the master of the house who owned the vineyard to punish the tenants with a miserable and severe death. No punishment would be unjust. Second, they reasoned the master should then lease the vineyard to other tenants who would provide him with the justifiable first fruits of the harvest.

“In typical rabbinical fashion, Jesus led His hearers to finish the story themselves. They no doubt were highly pleased with this unusual opportunity to parade their self-righteousness before Jesus. They rightly assessed the proper ending of the parable, that the irate owner would first severely punish the wicked growers and then replace them with others who were reliable. They were completely unaware that, as they fed their pride on Jesus’ baited question, they sprang the trap of their own condemnation,” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

Jesus, referencing Psalm 118:22-23, said, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

“Clearly, the parable is based on Isaiah 5:1–7; thus, the vineyard of Matthew 21:33 is the old covenant community. Jesus does not say that the vineyard is uprooted; rather, the vineyard’s tenants, those responsible for its upkeep and care, are judged (v. 43). These wicked tenants are ethnic Israelites, but not every ethnic Israelite. Furthermore, the new tenants are not of Gentile stock alone. Jews like the twelve disciples are also included,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“God displaces the first tenants because of their abject failure. By grace alone the Almighty redeemed His people from Egypt (Ex. 20:1–2) and gave them all they needed to bear fruit for His kingdom (Matt. 21:33) — to be a light unto the world (Isa. 42:6). Under the old covenant many failed at this task, especially the religious leaders; even worse, they persecuted those servants (the prophets) who exhorted Israel to fulfill her call (Matt. 21:34–36). But God will be patient until they go past the point of no return and murder His Son (vv. 37–39). By this dreadful deed the evil tenants will earn their own destruction (vv. 40–41).”

This passage is a somber warning for confessing, and professing, believers in Christ. Salvation is by God’s sovereign grace alone, through faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. The biblical evidence of true conversion is spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:16-26). The absence of such fruit, no matter one’s position and place in the world, reveals spiritual deadness (Eph. 2:1-3). Be diligent to make your calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:3-11).

Soli deo Gloria!

³³ “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. ³⁴ When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. ³⁵ And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. ³⁶ Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. ³⁷ Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ ³⁸ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ ³⁹ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.” (Matthew 21:33–39 (ESV)

“As we have seen thus far, Jesus has harsh words for the Jewish leaders, based largely upon their failure to see their need of repentance (Matt. 9:9–13; 21:28–32). The parable of the tenants recorded in Matthew 21:33–46 reveals a further reason for our Lord’s condemnation of the scribes and elders in their unwillingness to bear fruit for the Creator and thus draw the nations unto Him,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Today’s text begins with the phrase “Hear another parable.” This was a command from the Lord. Such an order would not have been well received by the Jewish religious leaders. They were used to giving commands, not receiving them.

Jesus told a story about a master of a house (οἰκοδεσπότης; oikodespotes). The English word despot, meaning an autocrat and authoritarian, comes from this Greek word. The master was a man of means and merchandise. This is supported by the Lord’s ongoing depiction of him. Several items should be noted.

First, the master planted a vineyard. Second, he put a fence around his vineyard. This would have provided protection from predators and a boundary discouraging thieves. Third, the master dug a winepress in the vineyard (ληνός’ lenos) Fourth, the man built a tower (πύργος; prygos). Towers were used for observation and defense against enemies. Fifth, the master leased the vineyard to tenant farmers. He hired them to work the land while he traveled to another country. The master retained ownership of the land even though tenant farmers worked the land and harvested the crop. This practice remains common among landowners today.

The stage was set. Jesus completed Act 1 of the story. Act 2 begins with the harvest.

“When the season for fruit drew near.”  Jesus did not provide any other time frame, but His listeners would have known several years would have passed. Many wineries indicate it takes up to three years for newly planted vineyards to yield usable grapes.

“Making wine is a long, slow process. It can take a full three years to get from the initial planting of a brand-new grapevine through the first harvest, and the first vintage might not be bottled for another two years after that. But when terroir and winemaking skill combine, the finished product is worth the wait,” explains the Winecooler Direct Website.

Following this extended period from planting to harvest, the master of the house “sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit.” However, the tenant farmers the master hired to work the vineyard did not respond well to the master’s servants. “The tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another.”

Following a further indefinite period of time, the master sent more servants to collect the harvest. In doing so, the master displayed unusual patience. “Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them.”

“The tenants proved to be wicked men, scoundrels, dishonest and cruel. When the servants asked for the portion of the grape-harvest to which the owner had a legal claim, they were refused,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

Finally, instead of retaliation the master sent his son. He reasoned “They will respect my son.” However, the tenants did nothing of the kind. “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.”

“It might be argued that at this point the story goes way beyond the boundaries of reason, that in the ordinary course of life no proprietor whose rights had been so rudely trampled upon would have been generous enough to give the criminals still another chance, and certainly that he would not have delivered over his own dear son to the whims and wiles of those who had bludgeoned his servants. This must be granted. But then, it should be borne in mind that this is a parable. Moreover, as will be shown later (see verse 42), it is a parable depicting sin most unreasonable and love incomprehensible! Considered in this light, the story is one of the most beautiful and touching ever told,” states Dr. Hendriksen.

We will examine the conclusion of the parable, and its application, when next we meet. Until then, give thanks to the Lord today for His incomprehensible love in contrast to our most unreasonable sin.

Soli deo Gloria!

³³ “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country (Matthew 21:33 (ESV)

Today’s text continues within the context of Jesus teaching the Jewish religious leaders (Matt. 21:23-27). Jesus is speaking to the chief priests and the scribes. This same setting will continue through Matthew 23:39. The Parable of Two Sons is the first of three Jesus gave to His opponents at this time. It is followed by The Parable of the Tenants (Matt. 21:33-46) and The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14). For the next several days, we will examine the Parable of the Tenants.

Today’s text begins with the phase “Hear another parable.” This is a command from the Lord. Such an order would not have been well received by the Jewish religious leaders. They were used to giving commands, not receiving them.

Jesus told a story about a master of a house (οἰκοδεσπότης; oikodespotes). The English word despot, meaning an autocrat and authoritarian, comes from this Greek word.

The master was a man of means and merchandise. This is supported by the Lord’s ongoing depiction of him. Several items should be noted.

First, the master planted a vineyard. The grammar indicates he did so alone. He took the initiative and actively planted a vineyard on a parcel of his own land. It must be emphasized from the outset the vineyard belonged to the master.

Second, he put a fence around his vineyard. A fence (φραγμός; phragmos) is a hedge or a partition. It may have been an erected stone wall. There are, to this day, many large stones in the Galilean area of Israel ideal for such a wall. This would have provided protection from predators and a boundary discouraging thieves.

Third, the master dug a winepress in the vineyard (ληνός’ lenos) “It consisted of two vats or receptacles, (1) a trough (Heb. gath, Gr. lenos) into which the grapes were thrown and where they were trodden upon and bruised (Isa. 16:10; Lam. 1:15; Joel 3:13); and (2) a trough or vat (Heb. yekebh, Gr. hypolenion) into which the juice ran from the trough above the gath (Neh. 13:15; Job 24:11; Isa. 63:2, 3; Hag. 2:16; Joel 2:24),” explains a commentator in the Easton’s Bible Dictionary.

Fourth, the man built a tower (πύργος; prygos). There were several towers in Judea at this time (Luke 13:4). They were used for observation and defense against enemies.

Fifth, the master leased the vineyard to tenant farmers. He hired them to work the land while he traveled to another country. The master retained ownership of the land even though tenant farmers worked the land and harvested the crop. This practice remains common among landowners today.

“During the first century AD, the agricultural system of Galilee featured landowners who did not supervise the care of their vineyards directly. Instead, these landowners hired tenant farmers to tend their vines on their behalf,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“Jesus’ parable also borrows imagery from the prophets that is key to understanding His teaching. Isaiah 5:1–7 describes Israel as the special vineyard God planted, so we see a correspondence in Matthew 21:33-39; Mark 12:1–9 between the vineyard and the old covenant community and between the owner of the vineyard and the Lord.”  

The stage is set. Act 1 is complete. What will happened in Act 2? We’ll discover the answer to this question when next we meet. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria! 

²⁸ “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ ²⁹ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. ³⁰ And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. ³¹ Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. ³² For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.” (Matthew 21:28–32 (ESV)

Today’s text continues within the context of Jesus teaching the Jewish religious leaders (Matt. 21:23-27). The phrase “What do you think?” validates this interpretation. Jesus is speaking to the chief priests and the scribes. This same setting will continue through Matthew 23:39. The Parable of Two Sons is the first of three Jesus gave to His opponents at this time. It is followed by The Parable of the Tenants (Matt. 21:33-46) and The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14).

The parable concerns a man with two sons. It is similar to the well-known Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). The father, presumably Jewish, went to his first son, presumably the eldest and most significant. He said to him, “Son, go and work in the vineyard today.” Jesus gives no particular age for the son. The parable’s presumption is the son was of a suitable age to do the hard labor required to work in the family’s vineyard.

This was not a father’s request for his son to work, but rather a command. This is what the father directed his son to do, and what the son was expected to do. However, in defiance to his father, the eldest son initially refused to obey his father’s command. He said, “I will not.” The son gave no reason for his refusal. However, he later changed his mind and went to work the vineyard.

“The lad’s answer, “I will not,” or “I won’t,” “I don’t want to,” also has a modern ring. Children have not changed much over the centuries. Happily, however, that even applies to the boy’s further reaction: subsequently “he repented and went.” For one reason or another he regretted his earlier flat refusal. He rues his blunt, negative reply and goes to work,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

Jesus then said, “And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.” The second son, probably the younger of the two, initially agreed but ultimately disobeyed his father by both lying to him and not working for him in the vineyard. It is also interesting to note this son addressed his father as sir, or lord. While this is a title of respect, it is lacking in familial love and affection.

Having set the stage, Jesus then asked the religious leaders a question. “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” This was the correct and obvious answer. Ultimately obedience, even when initially rejected, determines whether an individual does the will of a father.  Jesus then brought forth the parable’s application.

“Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. ³² For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.”

Even though the tax collectors and prostitutes initially rejected John the Baptist’s message and God’s law, they ultimately repented of their sin. They returned to the Lord as a direct result of John’s preaching and teaching. The religious leaders, in contrast, did the exact opposite. Professing devotion to God’s law, they ultimately rejected it by rejecting both John and Jesus. The former group would enter the kingdom of God, while the latter group would not.

“Though this parable of the Two Sons, found only in Matthew, is perhaps not as well-known as many of the others, it is by no means less important. In fact, a more important lesson than the one taught here is scarcely imaginable. That lesson is, of course, this: the doing of the will of God is the one thing needful. Is not that the teaching of both the Old and the New (Testaments)? See 1 Sam. 15:22; Ps. 25:4; 27:11; 86:11; 119; 143:10; Isa. 2:3; Matt. 7:21–27; 28:20; John 15:14; Acts 5:29. And the will of God is that men should everywhere be converted and acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, to the glory of God Triune (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 11:28–30; John 3:16, 36; 1 Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 10:5). As for the Mediator’s own relation to the will of his Sender, did he not say, “My food is to do the will of the One who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (John 4:34),” concludes Dr. Hendriksen.

Remember, obedience is the very best way to show that you believe. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

²³ And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” ²⁴ Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. ²⁵ The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?” And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ ²⁶ But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” ²⁷ So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (Matthew 21:23–27 (ESV)

Following Jesus’ cursing of the fruitless fig tree, and His subsequent explanation this represented His judgment upon the fruitless Jewish religious leaders, these same fruitless religious leaders engaged in an acrimonious discussion with the Lord.

Jesus entered the temple and began teaching. Luke recorded Jesus was proclaiming the Gospel (Luke 20:1). The chief priests, the elders and the scribes (Mark 11:27; Luke 20:1) of the Jews approached Jesus and accusingly said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” The religious leaders were not only referring to Jesus teaching, but also His cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12-13) and perhaps His triumphant entry into Jerusalem (21:1-11). They did not approve of Jesus doing “these things” and demanded the Lord justify His actions and show His credentials. In their minds, He was guilty of blasphemous sin.

The religious leader’s opposition to the Gospel was conspicuous. Instead of being God’s heralds, and spiritual shepherds of the Lord’s flock, they were His enemies. They followed in the footsteps of their ancestors (Ezekiel 34). They opposed Jesus, but could not deny His miraculous work and authoritative teaching.

In responding to the religious leaders, Jesus asked them a question. He said “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. ²⁵ The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?”

Matthew recorded the religious leaders’ discussion among themselves to Jesus’ statement. “And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ ²⁶ But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

“By means of Christ’s question his enemies had been driven into a corner. Obviously they did not want to answer, “The baptism of John had a heavenly source,” for they knew very well that the reply would be, “Why, then, did you not believe him?” On the other hand, were they to come out with what was probably that which most of them believed, or at least wanted to believe, namely, that the baptism of John was from men, the general public—perhaps especially the crowds of pilgrims that had come from Galilee—would become definitely hostile toward them, and might even stone them (Luke 20:6),” states Dr. William Hendriksen.

Therefore, the Jewish leaders said, ““We do not know.” Jesus answered, ““Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

“Jesus answers with a question of His own, a common practice in rabbinic debate. Using a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part (in this case, baptism) is used to represent the whole (John’s ministry), Christ asks His opponents about the authority behind John the Baptist (vv. 24–25). If they call John a prophet, they condemn themselves for not heeding him or Jesus, whom John heralded. But to say John’s authority is from men is to face the crowd’s anger. These cowards do not commit themselves either way (vv. 25–27),” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Dr. John MacArthur writes, “Jesus exposes their own lack of any authority to examine Him. And since they have no standing, Christ has no need to answer them (Matt. 21:27).”

“When we, like the scribes and priests in today’s passage, refuse to submit to the evidence in front of us, we are left with no right to expect further revelation of the truth. Obedience today is the prerequisite for fuller knowledge of the things of God tomorrow,” concludes Dr. Sproul.

Soli deo Gloria!